Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

narcolepticjim writes "An unnamed Dartmouth student was visited by Homeland Security for requesting a copy of Mao Zedong's Little Red Book for a class project." From the article: "The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said."

I've actually done that. I even once managed to get my referal ID into a link in the main Slashdot story that I had submitted. Am I rolling in wealth? Not hardly. I got less than $10 from that one story, and about $25 for 3 or 4 years of link whoring. Curiously enough, most of the commissions I've gotten have not been for the books I linked to, but for other stuff people bought after following my links!

Well, I've searched quite extensively under most of the keywords I could think of, and not found any mention of this aspect, so I'll tack it in here.

The real reason this kind of thing is stupid in general is because it prevents us from studying our enemies. If you can't understand what your enemies are thinking, then it is much more likely that they are going to be able to blindside you.

I'll give a concrete example that is actually related to real threats. I have a number of friends and acquaintances of various Islamic persuasions. They would naturally have different perspectives on the real threats of Islamic-based extremism. However, given the ideological climate of America as exemplified by this kind of incident, I'm certainly not going to risk causing them any problems by asking them for their insights.

On the other hand, worrying about potential communist sympathizers at this time is just plain stupid. You'd think the president who'd allow such a thing would have to be some kind of moron.

Time has proven that the Department of Homeland Security, the regular milatary, and, heck, even the local police force do NOT appreciate help from citizens when dealing with "the enemy". In their perspective, you are just as much as a loose cannon as any terrorist when you show any interest in working around the official organizations.

In other words, you're unnaccountable to your actions, and therefor may actually be breaking more laws than you're upholding.

That having been said, a visit from the DHS was entirely innapropriate for this single action, and I hope they had other good reasons to put up and investigation.

He even refuses to give his name now because he "fears repercussions".

That was the whole point. You don't send agents to knock on the front door of potential terrorists. If someone is dangerous or is believed to be dangerous, they are put under surveillance to see what's going on.

You send agents to intimidate. Apparently people interested in world views contradictory to our own.

Even though it was voted against, Bush has stated that he will continue to authorize illegal phone taps and other forms of spycraft on US citizins. NYTimes article here [nytimes.com] He was, in fact, filled with rage at the tresonous liberal media who dared to leak the fact that he is authorizing such illegal activities in the first place, and that they may well have murdered innocent people through their deplorable actions.:)

This comes right on the heels of the use of torture being approved by the Bush-McCain agreement. Although on its surface it appears to ban the use of torture by US personnel, it in fact grants them 100% immunity from any problems that may arise from the use of torture, under the constraint that they must have reason to believe that such torture is an order. Standing orders are any and all means are authorised, therefore, this law grants immunity from prosecution or court martial to any US troops or CIA agents who with to torture or execute to gain information. Finally, the house and senate have both backed a measure that will make evidence gained through torture admisable in court, as well as holding people, both citizins and not, indefinatly without trial, and without access to a lawyer.

So there you have it. Bush is overriding the Judicial branch and issuing warrants himself, torture is legal, and evidence tortured out of a suspect is admissible in court, you have no right to a speedy trial, nor to confront witnesses. What a week! Ammendments lost this week: I, IV, V, VI, VIII.

This illegal spying and stuff has been going on since before bush was in office. Actually it isn't illegal either but that another story.

We have always had agreements with other countries to spy and tap phone conversations. If something interesting is found they alert the proper authorities. This was automated around 1997 and now key words are caught and automated recording takes place. Typically, our agreements with the other countries allow them to collect the data on US citizens while we collect on their citizens. This gives the appearance of the government not having to deal with the constitution.

This project is commonly refereed to as Echelon [echelonwatch.org] Here is a tad bit more info on it [fas.org]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [fas.org] authorized spying and searches in terrorist/national security and other related matters regardless of the nationality or location of the person(s) being spied on. Originally this act intended for a court consisting of around 11 members to approve the actions. This court regularly reports to congress. Unfortunately (fortunately depending on your outlook), in 1979, President Carter decided that under certain circumstances could allow government officials to bypass these procedures [fas.org]. This was probably a reaction to the hostage crisis during his term. President Clinton expanded this a little in '95 [fas.org]. Bush using the processes from these executive orders changed the policy being used to take advantage of them. Unlike Carter and Clinton, his provision were made into law by provisions in the patriot act. [aclu.org]. Your probably right in that these executive orders go against the constitution but until they are successfully challenged, they are law and therefore legal. (That doesn't mean it rite though.)

As for the ban on torture loophole? I think you are misreading somethign here. All this deal did was say that interrogators accused of using improper methods could offer as a defense that they were acting on orders that a reasonable person would believe to be lawful. [latimes.com] This doesn't mean that i could order you to starve a person until they talk and you would get away with it. What it does say is that if an order is lawful to a reasonable person you can use that as a defense. This means if i order you to wake the prisoner at different time in the night to disrupt thier sleeping habits and confuse them, as long as a reasonable person wouldn't consider that torture, you wouldn't get in trouble. Imunity isn't even mentioned either. This is a purposed bill too, it hasn't made it's way into law and needs to be cleared with debate before it becomes law.

I know it is fun to bash Bush and the current administration. People always do it when thier party isn't in control. Lets be honest here and bash him for stuff that needs to be bashed. Saying we can toruture people even though existing law says we cannot is stretching the truth a bit. This doen't mean it hasn't happend and if it did, those resoncible should be presecuted. Saying ilegal wire taps or ilegal spying isn't being truthfull either. The facilities that made it possible were put in place well before bush or his cronies came to power. Under current law, regular law enforcment have to get permision from a judge (well except for patriot act provisions). But we can see were government officials aren't held to that law unnder certain circumstances. Is it right that government officials can spy on it's citizens without going thru the regular chanels? Probably not but that doesn't mean it is not legal.

"I know it is fun to bash Bush and the current administration. People always do it when thier party isn't in control. "

Actually it is the most painful thing to have to speak out about presidential malfeasance ( Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official. )

There are some constitutional issues here about illegal search and seizure that the Federal courts will undoubtedly have to deal with.

This administration plainly want the freedom to torture anyone that can provide them information about their enemies (not necessarily my enemies or your enemies but the enemies that the administration percieves as enemies to the State or themselves or their interests). This is clearly shown by there research and stance (a stretch) that they can legally torture some people. These people are "enemy combatants" and who determains who are enemy combatants? The White House. There seems to be a trail of the practices of torture at Gitmo were transfered to IRAQ with the visit of one of the Gitmo people in charge of that sort of thing. Now we find that the CIA probably has had secret prisons that detained and possible tortured individuals.

There is a deep morality issue here. Not whether something is legal but the very idea that our elected leader would treat anyone in the world with the reckless disregard that seems to be the case. The Geneva convention sets up some standards for the treatement of prisoners of war (people remember like you and me, with a mother and father, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, with maybe different ideas (which our Constitution protects here), or a different religion (which our Constitution protects here). But maybe just an asshole set of demagogic leaders which have issues with our... leaders. They are still people. The Geneva convention was set in place as much a protection for our own citizens that are captured in a conflict as it is just a moral guidline for human treatment of people (that happen to be cannon fodder in a conflict).

Back to my point. It is my opinion that that attitude and the carrying out of that attitude by action to spy on our citizens, torture individuals (certainly setting it up so our military and intellegence arm felt that it was alright to do) constitures wrong doing and missconduct of a public official. That kind of conduct should be held up to legal and constitutional standard and possibly even the international court (funny how this administration did not want to have anything to do with the international court).

We are having to deal not only with the fundemetalism abroad but here at home.

So it is not fun to bash Bush. It is painful and sad not only that these things seem to have been done. But the destroying in 5 short years what it took 200+ years to establish in the world as a moral authority.

Don't get hung up on the legal issue too much or what others have done. Bush has to live with and answer for His actions and his actions alone. If he does not want the critisim, don't torture people and don't spy on us, and certainly don't send agents out to interview the parents of a boy that ordered a copy of one of the worlds most infuential political books!

IANAL and in fact am not even an American, but I am a gun enthusiast and politically conservative. (in that I believe in a comparatively small government with very clearly defined roles and limitations) As such, I have read a lot over the years about about personal liberty vs public security as it applies to gun and privacy laws in the USA.
Two quotes come immediately to mind, one which I quote exactly, the other I paraphrase from an article in Guns & Ammo some years ago. (feel free to correct me if I err significantly)

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." (Thomas Jefferson)

"All freedom and all security in this country rely utterly on three things, the right to free speech, the right to vote anonymously and the right to bear arms. Everything else is meaningless without those three. " (Lt Col. Jeff Cooper, Marines(ret))

I had never shared the viewpoint of pro-gun doomsayers who warned that losing the right to bear arms would *inevitably* lead to a further erosion of all other rights, but in light of the past years revelations regarding the Bush administration's policies, I have been forced to change my opinion.
The right to free speech : gone
The right to free assembly : gone (see the Seattle WTO protests of '99)
The right to vote : rendered meaningless. (see the Florida scandals and the related but underreported scandals with absentee ballots and the ballots of overseas servicemen
The right to bear arms : been crippled for years at the state and federal levels.
The right to freedom from discrimation regardless of race, creed, color(sic) faith, sexual orientation or physical ability. gone
(ethnic/religous profiling has been a news headline for years and the current administration is clearly biased against same-sex couples)
Slashdotters, being largely IT people, are naturally more interested in how the Bush administrations reindeer games are affecting things like access to information, privacy and the right to due process. I think it would also be worthwhile to check out a well written article on how the Second Amendment is involved in all this:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/050 9/ [gunsandammomag.com]

I'm wondering, where is this "Land of the Free and home of the Brave" I have heard so much about?

don't forget, all of the 'torture' we've been doing so far is just fraternity pranks!

Is it? GWB admin is fighting the release of a number of other photos and information from Gitmo and Iraq. Apparently, they belive that it will inspire the enemy to rise up as well as encourage others to join. So how bad is it?

Supposedly some of it includes rape, including that of children held captive. One of the videos includes a 15 year old boy being raped by one of the employees according to a reporter that claims to have seen it. Good God, I hope that it's not true.

Wow, I didn't realize any of the Feds still cared about Commies any more. I do know that Philadelphia still had a Red Squad back in the early 90s, who were spying on an anarchist convention I went to - they were parked in front of the Quaker school where the convention was held and the anarchist-run coffeehouse in the evening. (I did the obvious thing and went out and offered them coffee, but they'd brought their own:-)

There's definitely a major major threat that college students reading Mao's Red Book are going to go out and start peasant revolutions - here in the US they'd need to learn to sing country music first, and then they'd find that most of the farms have been taken over by large agribusinesses like Tyson Chicken and Archer-Daniels-Midland, who've got other ways to be connected to power. I mean, sure, the Little Red Book was popular reading back in the 1960s, since the US hadn't had a Cultural Revolution and reading was still legal, but the Feds are starting to catch up with Mao.

At least they don't have to worry about anybody reading "Das Kapital" and believing Marxist economics - it's a really dull read and the economics are transparently bogus, unlike the Communist Manifesto which is at least short and enthusiastic.

The parent poster's unlikely premise of college students starting a peasant revolt, as the basis for Dubya/CIA/DHS/FBI/NSA investigating a student for wanting Mao's "Little Red Book" evokes !WTF!.

If I didn't know any better, we have corporate national socialist running the USA these days, and what is good for GM or WAl-Mart is good for the country. Considering that China is one of the USA's largest suppliers, largest customers, and largest creditors, you would think that the PRC (China) is the USA's newest bestest friend.

What's next? Any college student caught studying Taoism or Confucianism will be turned over to the neo(Con)artist religious fundamentalist Inquisition and put on trial for blasphemy?

but he had to fill out a form because he was requesting an inter-library loan. I don't know how your school works, if the loan department can psychically detect what you want to request and save you the trouble of filling at a form or whatever, but obviously his school works the old-fashioned way.

Not that this excuses the utterly retarded HomeSec nonsense, of course.

They don't mind people reading the book. The reason they came after him was that he was trying to get it from the library. They won't have cared if he'd just bought it from Amazon like a normal person, but he had to try and deprive Chairman Mao's estate of their royalties, and there's no way the Feds can turn a blind eye to that, especially when they're pushing China to crack down on that sort of stuff.

For interlibrary loan, he presumably needed to leave his name, address, and student ID number with the library so they could contact him when the book arrived.

There are way too many US colleges that routinely violate the privacy of their students and expose them to identity theft by using their Social Security Number as a student ID number, because it's ostensibly unique and they sometimes also need it if the student's an employee or has a government loan. Fortunately neither school I attended did that, but it's extremely common. Similarly, many US states use the SSN as a driver's license number, and all of them collect the SSN in keep it in their databases. And many medical insurance companies use SSNs as a customer ID number (HIPAA's changing that a bit, but Medicare's still based on SSNs so they usually need it anyway.) And too many companies use SSNs as an employee ID. It's appalling, but get used to it.

In Canada the equivalent of the SSN is the SIN (Social Insurance Number). In any case a few years ago it became law that you cannot be refused a service because you refuse to give out your SIN. The exception to this is that it has a valid use (Pretty well the only valid uses are ones that deal directly with taxation, for example you must give it to your employer so they can report income tax stuff correctly).

That being said companies can ask you for your SIN but you are not obligated to give it to them. For me that meant waiting 3 weeks longer for a credit card, but at least VISA doesn't have my SIN

The main reason why I am so paranoid about my SIN is I actually had mine stolen a while back. A company I used to work for outsourced their pension stuff. About a year ago the place got broken into and computers containing my SIN along with 30000 or so other people got stolen. The process of making sure that no one can apply for credit in my name is something I do not want to repeat.

"the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program"
He used the campus' library to request the book from another library.
Not that that makes it right.

This book is actually the second-most published book in the world [wikipedia.org] (well, third if you count the Ikea catalog), which means that if it is on some kind of watch list, the Feds really have their work cut out for them. If this is one of those books that can change the world, it already has, and there's little the Feds can do about it now by stopping people from writing papers about it at universities.

"Printer's ink has been running a race against gunpowder these many, many years. Ink is handicapped, in a way, because you can blow up a man with gunpowder in half a second, while it may take twenty years to blow him up with a book. But the gunpowder destroys itself along with its victim, while a book can keep on exploding for centuries." --Chistopher Morley, "The Haunted Bookshop"

The people in power now are the children of the cold war era.. terrorist, communist, witch or heretic. Same name, same tactic, different era.

History repeats it's self. We have a revolution, we say "we've fixed it", so we care for a while. Then we get lax and more idiots come in and do the same thing over again. Revolution is needed right now, revolution is very difficult though. You have to scrape the bottom of the barrel before you see how bright the sky truely is.. we're getting to the bottom of the barrel now, the question is how long untill something happens to let people see the sky.

I don't know about anyone specifically going to jail for being a Communist, but in California, no person can teach in a public school and be a member of the Communist Party. It is grounds for immediate dismissal.

I don't know about anyone specifically going to jail for being a Communist, but in California, no person can teach in a public school and be a member of the Communist Party. It is grounds for immediate dismissal.

It's important to understand the distinction between being a communist and being a member of the Communist Party. (A lot of people miss this distinction in discussions of McCarthyism, for example.) Being a communist is one thing -- i.e. believing in and espousing communist ideals, associating with other communists, etc. The Communist Party, however, was actually an American branch of the Party in the U.S.S.R. -- it took orders from Moscow, had the goal of violently overthrowing the U.S. government, and was involved in espionage within the U.S. (See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA. [wikipedia.org])

Basically, it's the difference between being sympathetic with Al Qaeda (totally legal, if not moral) and being an active member of Al Qaeda.

I realize that I'm apparently swimming upstream here, but I suspect that a lot of the people thundering about this are simply accepting it uncritically because they want to believe it, insofar as it confirms their particular worldview.

So, to remind everyone, we have exactly one source for this, the professor, who is at best relaying the story secondhand to all of us - we do not have an eyewitness report, in that the student to whom this supposedly happened hasn't given his version to anyone else, including the paper in which this was reported. Hell, it doesn't look like the paper even bothered to contact DHS for any sort of comment.

I dunno, I really think I'd like a little more info. More than just the say-so of some professor dude, who may or may not have a vested interest in telling tales.

The interesting thing is that under the so-called USA PATRIOT Act the library is forbidden from confirming that the incident took place. Not only do the police get to review your choice of reading material but the librarians will go to prison if they tell anyone that an investigation actually happened. That way people like you can say "well, there isn't any confirmation so it probably isn't true". Isn't that nice?

Well, it's not as though this kind of thing is unexpected. Once thegovernment is given power, it is human nature to abuse it. What Idon't understand is why people fall hook, line, and sinker, for thesame techniques throughout history over and over again.

1) Instill fear in the population somehow, by either orchestating or latching on toa catastrophic event,2) Tell the population that you will take care of it, blame enemies of the state,3) Go to war, claim critics of the war are unpatriotic, out of touch, part of an "elite".

This is all classic power grab politics, and yet it happens again and again inhistory.

Why do people not learn from history? It is clear that those in power have avested interest in having a sheeple populace. A critical thinking, well informedelectorate, is the biggest enemy to would be dictators in a democratic society.

Start with the children. I guess fear really is the mind killer. And, at the risk ofpulling a Godwin, two quotes from Hermann Goering, leader of Hitler's Luttewaffe.

"Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy"

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Finally, just a minor nit. The submitter claims the student was a "Dartmouth" student, whereas the article states that the student was from "U Mass-Dartmouth".

Because people are stupid. Even the people on Slashdot will make stupid mistakes and instead of going "Hey, I sure fucked that up". We try to find some upside and convince ourselvs we're not as dumb as we truely are.

Human nature wants someone to protect us, we want to believe the world is a happy place and all will be well. Because if we look in the mirror we see someone we don't like and a world we can't stand.

It works the same way religion does. If you look at something else, you don't have to see the real world. It's the same reason so many body builders work so hard to get great bodies. They often hate the person inside so much they want to change it.

People believe what they are told.. because if they don't, they end up broken..

Because they think of themselves as the "good guys", and the history they are taught (by school, Hollywood, the media, etc) portrays bad things being done by "bad guys". In reality, there is no good and bad, just a mixture of greys.

How often is it that a movie about Nazi Germany includes the democracy that Germany had beforehand? How often do you hear about how Osama bin Laden called for jihad against Iraq for invading Kuwait? How often do you hear about how Saddam Hussein reformed Iraq into a secular state instead of a theocracy, or how he increased equality and women's rights?

As long as people are taught that some countries are good and some countries are evil, so long as their enemies are demonised, the majority of people will continue to think of themselves as the "good guys", and therefore immune to committing atrocities and war crimes.

Because they think of themselves as the "good guys", and the history they are taught (by school, Hollywood, the media, etc) portrays bad things being done by "bad guys". In reality, there is no good and bad, just a mixture of greys.

I completely agree that history as it is taught is a mostly worthless mess of "we are infinitely good" and "they are infinitely bad". However, to day that "there is no good and bad, just a mixture of greys" is ridiculous! There are many events throughtout history that are very clearly Bad and others that are clearly Good, regardless of your ethical background.

Let's look at a few extreme examples:

6 million Jews are murdered in German death camps during World War II

An estimated 20 million Russians are murdered in the Soviet Union during Stalin's reign

American slavery is an established institution for hundreds of years

Native Americans are nearly wiped out by small-pox infected blankets and through other genocidal actions

There is no shades of grey in those acts. They were and are evil acts.

Now the fact that American history books as taught in our schools will only go into detail on the first two (non-American "bad guys") and gives only token treatment to slavery and usually don't mention the Native American genocide is an entirely different problem...

Now the fact that American history books as taught in our schools will only go into detail on the first two (non-American "bad guys") and gives only token treatment to slavery and usually don't mention the Native American genocide is an entirely different problem...

I don't know if my experience is representative, but throughout my public middle school and high school history/English courses, we spent -much- more time being taught about slavery and the plight of Native Americans than the holocaust and Stalin.

And I'm proud to be an American.Where at least I'm told I'm free.I won't forget the third-grade classthat ingrained it into me,and I'll proudly stand up,next to you, though I don't know what it means.Oh, there ain't no doubt who runs this land.God Bless the bourgeois.

I wrote that in my head when I had to work at K-Mart the day after the 9/11 attack, telling people constantly that we were out of flags (what, you didn't care about them a week ago?), and hearing patriotic music blaring on the radio.

LOL, I tried that once and I got my ass beat by not one but four cops. When it became clear I intended to file a complaint, I was weeks later served a summons and charged with resisting arrest, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison less a day based on how the prosecutor elected to proceed. The arrest I allegedly resisted was, I shit you not, for a non-criminal traffic offence carrying a $30 fine. The charges were ultimately dropped, but the point remains: police can, and will, make up any story they please to do whatever it is they want to you, especially if you lead them to believe their authority is not absolute.

1. Why would a student have to write down a SSN for a book loan, but not have to write down the class for which he is requesting the book?
The UMass system when I was there asked for your SSID/student ID and the various other pieces of information, but not what class you were doing it for (you could include it as optional information). The reason is that they really don't care if you're reading it for a class, multiple related classes or for your own personal improvement.

2. If he *did* have to write down his class, then why would the [DoHS] waste resources on this case?
See 1

3. Why would a book by Mao be on a watch list? The article mentioned that the student had been abroad for a significant amount of time; it was probably a totality of the evidence. (Note: not justifying the situation, just saying how it probably came about)

4. Why does it seem just a little too convenient that this unnamed student is being investigated by the NSA while doing research for a class on "fascism and totalitarianism"? The course is Ideologies of Power, as has been pointed out. Fascism and totaliarianism might be part of the course or an Honors' Colloquium, which typically takes part of the course and creates a focused presentation, research paper or discussion group for an extra credit plus honors credit in the area of the course. This would also explain why a course text was not available in the UMass Library system.

5. Why are none of Robert PontBriand's classes (the professor in question, according to TFA) listed as "fascism and totalitarianism"? See 4

I got paid a visit for reading material that was hardly "subversive" -- it was published by the U.S. military! Read all about it here [shockandblog.com] and here [shockandblog.com]... I was reading the literature on a plane, to be sure, but a home visit from the feds seemed way over the top. To their credit, however, the Marshals seemed to be nice enough and they didn't seem to think I was a threat to national security, and I haven't been bothered since the visit to my house. Though I wonder whether there are now federal files on me, and whether I'm being looked at funny at the airport.

I believe his point was that, regardless of how the agents acted, he should have raised a much larger stink about the whole situation instead of just posting some lackadaisical story about it on an unknown blog. As the parent mentioned, he was lucky that he was even able to do that.

In 10-20 years everyone will be wondering "How the hell did we get in this crappy position to begin with?" Until that time, the uninitiated masses will just continue to ignore everything and mutter "in this day and age we just have to give up some things, I guess."

Step 1 - Assemble numerous cells in the US.
Step 2 - Have all but one or two act as decoy cells. Keep decoy cells separate from the real cells with no contact whatsoever.
Step 3 - Members of decoy cells check out hundreds of books from librares, surf dozens and dozens of terrorist websites, etc., etc.
Step 4 - While Feds waste time chasing down book readers and web surfers, the real cells continue on with their plans.
Step 5 - As the US government expands powers and searches, create more decoy cells that create more needless searches and wild goose chases.
Step 6 - Repeat steps 3 to 5 as needed.
Step 7 - Obtain US citizenship and vote for politicians that expand the powers and searches in Step 5.

Last summer, I was photographing old "fishbowl [google.ca]" buses in Ottawa, Ontario. Whithin minutes, I was hassled by transit security who were adamant that I identify myself. After telling them that they had no reason nor right to demand I identify myself, they told me that I could go, but not without calling the city cops on me.

Within minutes, I was hassled by a very hot and loud bitch cop (120 dB of pure bitchery and 120 pounds of hot chick). Within minutes I was surrounded by 6 cops and transit security.

During the ensuing shouting match, none was ever able to say what illegal act I had committed. I eventually gave my (cellphone) number to the bitch;)

6 months later, a "national security division" cop of the RCMP [rcmp.gc.ca] calls me on the cellphone and wants to talk to me.

- This is a cellphone.

- Oh. Sorry. Well, call me at 555-555-5555.

Not being stupid, I make sure I don't call him from $ORKPLACE. They're the police, so they surely can find my home number in the phone directory, no? And if they check google with my name, they can find I'm a transit buff, no?

Well, I guess not. And if they are doing "national security" investigations, 6 months later is pretty fast, I guess...

"The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said."

What better way to learn about fascism and totalitarianism than to live under 'em, eh?

Ok, all my bullshit meters went off when I read this article. It might have happened, but I'm laying odds that it's either a hoax, or that the professor is studying to see how neo-anarchistic sites like Slashdot can uncritically accept stories about our government, or that the student successfully bullshitted the professor. Or it could be our government is actually somewhat retarded (Chairman Mao is a threat in the era of the War on Terror?) and somewhat fascist. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Random points, in no particular order:

1) It's too coincidental. It happened (or was published) a day or so after secret eavesdropping policies from the administration made front page news in the New York Times.

2) Why the hell would agents bring the book? Can you imagine NSA agents walking into a remote library (and not the local library, because he needs the extra-special "Peking" version of the world's secondly most commonly printed book) and checking out this "rare" copy of a book? *How* did they check it out? Do they keep library accounts with all the universities in the state? And, why? Just so they can wave it in his face? What did they do with it after? Just toss it in the mail? Drive it back across town or to another city to return it? It makes no sense.

3) As best as I can tell, there's no such thing as the extra-special Peking Version of the book. My fiancee is Chinese, she's never heard of it (though she dislikes Communism, and isn't an expert on it either). Google '"Peking Version" Quotations of Chairman Mao' (or Little Red Book) and you get no results. Even the name is a bit suspect since Peking is the British name for Beijing, and the communists worked to change the name on everything to Beijing (via the uniform adoption of the standardized Pinyin system). But it's an older book, so it could be legit (the Pinyin reforms didn't happen for a while during Mao's reign). But neither does "Beijing Version" get any hits. Even the 1st edition was published in a variety of places, not just Beijing, so it would be a misnomer to call it a Peking Version.

Here's quotes from the article:'"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."'and"In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the student asked for a version translated directly from the original book."...which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

There is a rare-ish 1st edition, but it's only two chapters shorter than the common 2nd edition, and the text isn't different in any meaningful way (I think there was a typo or two fixed.) Having the student request a rare 1st edition wouldn't make any sense since (beyond the obvious fact the English versions aren't rate), he doesn't speak Chinese, and there's no textual changes between the English versions based on the different editions (2 chapters were added for the 2nd edition, and one for the 3rd).

4) The Little Red Book IS the bloody abridged version of the multi-volume Selected Works of Chairman Mao. But in the article it states the kid wanted the 'unabridged' version (of an abridged book??), and one that was "translated directly from the original version". Heh, I didn't know the Quotations of Chairman Mao (again, 2nd most published book in the world) was so rare that most American versions were, what... translated from the original Japanese? This request of the student's is nonsensical.

5) The professor is up for tenure. Which may or may not make a lick of difference, depending on the professor. He seems cool enough, though, doing some sort of extreme history thing in Afghanistan.http://www.brianglynwilliams.com/ [brianglynwilliams.com]

The professor mentioned in the story (Dr. Brian Glyn Williams) took the time to answer these points. I'm pasting it verbatim here.

-----

Dear Bill,Delighte to hear from you and I hope my response is of service. If you could post it I would be most grateful.I am one of the professors mentioned in your 'conspiracy theory response' (Dr. Brian Glyn Williams)With all due respect I wanted to add a few comments. A. The incident with our Univ. of Massachusetts history student happened several weeks ago, I was asked to comment on President Bush's sweeping surveillance activities only yesterday. I cited this incident as an example of the White House policies' very real applications and how they trickle down to the university level. My description of the incident was in response to an inquiry from a reporter at the Standard Times, New Bedford who called requesting a commentary and I thought it was appropriate. B. There are several key sections omitted in the version here in the USA of the Little Red Book and we are proud of our student trying to search out the original. This is exactly the sort of primary document research that makes for good history!C. I have tenure and I do not know how you came to the assumption that I do not, my web page brianglynwilliams.com clearly states that I am Associate Professor of History. But I do appreciate your reference to the field work I do in Afghanistan and Central Asia in trying to understand the roots of jihadism and terrorism. It is precisely this sort of cutting edge research and teaching I hope to protect. One must go to the original sources to get the facts, wether it be jihadi webpages or Mao's Little Red Book. I am hardly a liberal firebrand, I just want to carry out my research unfettered by the fear of investigation and encourage the same in my students. D. I know this student well. He is the real thing, he is mature, honest, reliable, hard-working and genuinely interested in getting to the truth on issues, i.e. he is everything we train our students to be. The fact that Dr. Bob Pontriband who is by the way a passionate educator who seeks to instill just this sort of above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty research in his students also vouches for him lends two voices to his defense. I sincerely hope that your questions are meant to be the sort of critical inquiry we expect from our students and not some reflexive attempt to de-legitimize our reporting of what it is frankly a rather disturbing act of surveillance that does not seem to be an example of productive, preemptive counter terrorism. Sincerely,Dr. Brian Glyn WilliamsAssociate Professor of HistoryUniversity of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

I'd understand if the feds paid someone a visit after they bought - for example - large quantities of chemicals that can be used to build a bomb, or something similar, and I'd expect them to pay someone a visit who tries to buy a large number of guns and ammo for them, and similar things. That's OK.

But a *book*? And what's more, a book that contains nothing but *quotations*? It's not even the anarchist's cookbook or something - just a collection of quotes. Sure, it was Mao who wrote it, but seriously - this is no more justified than McCarthyism was. You could just as well advocate paying someone a visit for trying to obtain a copy of, say, de bello gallico (Julius Caesar was a dictator, too, and not exactly squeamish when dealing with his enemies).

Sounds like this prof is actually trying to educate his students instead of being one of these pro-terrorist cranks the university system seems to enjoy hiring, but shouldn't we be wanting the Feds to go have a look for themselves to make sure everything was on the level? Be careful before tossing out the standard issue slashbot line, because when something eventually goes BOOM you won't be allowed to ask "Why didn't the spooks connect the dots and prevent it" if you are now howling that they shouldn't be looking for the dots.

First, what "pro-terrorist cranks" do universities "enjoy hiring"? Even Al-Arian in Florida, who is hardly in any way representative of the kinds of professors hired at most universities in the US, was acquitted of any wrongdoing. But he lost his job as a result of the controversy, and you can bet that professors likely to cause such controversy are going to be passed up by most hiring committees.

More importantly, however, can you please tell us what "dots" can possibly be "connected" to terrorism based on a professor checking out a book of quotations from a library? You make a big deal out of the fact that this guy wanted the right version of this book - as if a concern for accuracy makes one a terrorist suspect. This is ludicrous. I have no problem with the Feds monitoring purchases of large quantities of dangerous chemicals, but books? Full of quotations? By dead Chinese dictators? Come on.

As a professor who writes and teaches about war and terrorism (among other things), I often find myself checking out and buying books about terrorism, al Qaeda, and other things far more "threatening" than Mao's red book (not to mention visiting websites, etc.) My research interests have caught the attention of the feds before [slashdot.org], but never from just checking out a book from the library. The idea that certain books are flagged simply for ideological content is a sign of significant problems in terms of academic freedom and freedom of thought generally.

The fact that a forty-year old book of vague quotations about "people's war" that is also the second most popular book in the world [wikipedia.org] (second only to the Bible) is on that list just shows how surreal and absurd this war on terrorism has become.

Helping the police do their duty is a responsibility of a citizen, even in, especially in, a free country.

What if their duty is to make a list of all the {Jews | Japanese-Americans | Communists | Bourgeois Capitalists | Anarchists | Muslims | Armenians | crypto-Christians | Quakers | students reading Mao} on your block?

Will you answer "Jawohl, mein Polizei, Herr Kohn in apartment 103 is one?"

It really amazes me that so many "good Christians" believe in always helping the cops. I mean, their Christ was executed, according to the law of the times, after being seized by the cops for being a troublemaking radical. You'd think they might remember that.

Instead of enforcing constitutionally protected freedom of speech, its better for you to choose what people can read. Your constitution doesnt really matter.

yup, there's no chance that anyone could possibly read the book and not come away a devout communist. Yup, no one has ever read the writings of such figures purely to try and figure out how they think, with the understanding that it will lack a true representation of what happened to the people.

If you choose this repression, then you are simply walking down the same path that Mao himself followed.

Unless you're living in a void and not critically evaluating what you read, Mao's little red IS harmless.

Mao certainly caused a lot of deaths, but contrary to leaders like Stalin, Mao was more a flawed leader that screwed up badly than someone whose core ideology involved mass murder, and if you read the little red book you will see that reflected in a lot of what he is saying.

Most people reading it will find themselves agreeing with a lot of it, either because it is vague enough so as to be more or less apolitical, or because it plain makes sense. Most of those same people will probably never like Mao, nor will they they ever become apologists for what he did. Even the Chinese Communist Party readily admits that Mao had many flaws and that many of his policies should never have been carried out because they were disasterous and caused vast numbers of deaths that could have been avoided with better leadership.

But you will also likely find that many of the things in Maos little red book are things you can agree with exactly because it contains admonishions of how to act that the Chinese Communist Party really ought to be learning from.

A few examples (NOTE: There are certainly far more controversial quotes too - particularly regarding the Leninist concept of democratic centralism - I'm not trying to whitewash Mao, just to show a side most peopke don't know - for the other side, read the book):

"A proper measure of democracy should be put into effect in the army, chiefly by abolishing the feudal practice of bullying and beating and by having officers and men share weal and woe.".

And: " With regard to economic democracy, the representatives elected by the soldiers must be ensured the right to assist (but not to bypass) the company leadership in managing the company's supplies and mess."

And: "We must not be complacent over any success. We should check our complacency and constantly criticize our shortcomings, just as we should wash our faces or sweep the floor every day to remove the dirt and keep them clean."

And: "We should be modest and prudent, guard against arrogance and rashness, and serve the Chinese people heart and soul. . .."

And: " Our duty is to hold ourselves responsible to the people. Every word, every act and every policy must conform to the people's interests, and if mistakes occur, they must be corrected -- that is what being responsible to the people means."

The biggest "danger" the little red book constitutes is that it might make some readers see the difference between communist ideology and what has been practiced in the name of communism in totalitarian states - the greatest bulwark against support for communist ideas today is that most people still think of countries like China, North Korea or the old Soviet Union as representative of communist ideology, rather than as dictatures that flagrantly abuse it's symbolism and phrases. How many people today consider the Inquisition representative of Christian ideas (I don't, and I'm an atheist), or for that matter consider Hitlers support for the church as proof churches are evil?

However, the Chinese Communist Party is really the organisation that should worry most about people actually reading and understanding Mao and realising just exactly how far from the goals of the Chinese revolution they have moved.

They better hope the Chinese people don't start taking to heart quotes like the ones above, or the following one, and start expecting for them to be followed:

" Every comrade must be brought to understand that the supreme test of the words and deeds of a Communist is whether they conform with the highest interests and enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of the people."

If you'd like to see for yourself what it actually says, all of Mao's little red book is available online [morningsun.org]

... then you must be unaware of how the patriot act allows your government to monitor all activity of people signing out books at libraries.

But that's the american way... be unaware, give away all your rights at the slightest startle,... then wonder why the special police aren't letting you, an innocent person even contact your family, let alone tell you why you've been arrested.

But that's just inside your borders. It's far worse if you include the atrocities your country commits outside your borders, pretending that you don't need to uphold your own values when its not US soil, and not US people, as if they are any less human than you.

On November 9, 1938, I was still a German patriot. I was born into an old established family, the son of one of the most honoured German jurists and defender of rights. I myself was recognized for my twenty years of professional [legal] work,...and, as an officer in the World War, had been awarded the Iron Cross first degree. I had borne every kind of injustice since 1933 in the hope that, at least for my children who were half-Aryan, there would be a dignified life in my homeland, when, in a few years time, this reign of terror would have spent itself. Education, experience and emotion had made a truly patriotic German out of me,.... In the face of the mounting distress outside, we maintained, within our four walls, an ever more profound and confident spiritual serenity which we inculcated in our children. We believed that we possessed the spiritual and physical strength to survive the Third Reich within Germany. Unprecedented events would have to occur to cause us to abandon this foundation upon which we had built our lives. Such events did occur in the following days.

Now I'm not saying the situation in contemporary America is anywhere as bad as the situation in Nazi Germany. What I am trying to point out is that beliefs like yours, that, it "can't be that bad", have consistently been disproven.

Will things become as bad here as they got in Nazi Germany? Like you, I doubt it. But it can happen here. Just ask any Japanese American who sat out WWII in an American internment camp. Hell, ask any black person over age 40 who grew up in the American South, or anyone caught up in the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950s.

Was Soviet Communism a real threat in the 1950s? Definitely, just as terrorism is a real threat now. But just as in the 1950s, it's also an excuse for government excess and the curtailment of personal liberties in the name of "security".

You can't belive governemtn agents are tracking people who check out books? This has all happened before, rght here in America.

At which point do we surrender our liberty to travel the world and have the freedom of conscious to learn about anything we want to a world where people who deviate from the norm of being a Patriotic American(tm) are investigated and grilled for not being "normal"?

Unfortunately, most people support this kind of thing. What can we do? Not much. The very constitution that Bush claims he loves by nominating "strict constructionists" is "just a damned piece of paper". Pretty soon, the "strict" interpretation of the constitution will mean that anyone who mentions the Bill of Rights is a "liberal activist" who likes to misinterpret our "rights" to be "protected" from evil terrorists weilding Mao's book.

The U.S. Army has put into print enough information that terrorists don't need any other sources. And when I say "For Dummies" I really mean it, those field manuals are written for the lowest common denominator.

And when I say "For Dummies" I really mean it, those field manuals are written for the lowest common denominator.

To be fair to the boys and girls in the field, I think military field manuals are often written for people who may need to read things in a hurry, while under pressure. (Being under fire will do that to you, I hear.) A medic friend who served in the military for a while sometimes noted the apparently simplicity of the army field medic's handbook, which says things like this on page 1:

Is the casualty conscious?
If no, leave him.
If yes, turn the page.

It's assumed that while under fire, you might forget the basic things, so they state everything, clearly and simply.

"Yet as popular as the quote is, it's not real. These words are not anything Julius Caesar ever wrote or said. No biographies of Caesar or histories of Rome contain these lines, and scholars who have made it their business to know everything about the man draw a blank on this quote. Likewise, Shakespeare did not stuff this soliloquy into the mouth of the title character in his play Julius Caesar, nor did any of the Bard's other characters utter it. No record of this quote has been found prior to its appearance on the Internet in late 2001."